I think his statements about a conspiracy to discredit audiophiles are a bit much.

Is it any different than people on this thread, including manufacturers themselves thinking properly designed speakers costing above $2k can only improve looks and not performance? and that the high end speaker market is nothing more than eye candy?

But not obvious when compared to companies which use the same design philosophy such as Axiom, Paradigm, PSB, B&W ect. Sure you can make references to obvious choices like Bose, Klipsh ect...but compare speakers who's engineers have the same design goal(which should be a flat freq response through it's range). I also took part in the M3/B&W test and thought I was listening to two different Axiom speakers. The point is, for two sonically close speakers, do you want to pay $350 or $2500? regardless of the outcome of the test, that to me was the main revelation of the test. You can keep going on about the problems associated with testing speakers, but the simple fact is, the greatest biases are the appearance and price which is why that shuld be eliminated. Blind testing may not be the perfect system, but it's superior to sighted tests as shown by the heavy hitters who support it. If you you read the posts below the link Jay provided, you'll see some very strong professional rebuttals that are more interesting than the blog(imo). When I buy speakers, I listen with my ears, not my eyes. When I buy paint for my kitchen, I use my eyes, and don't tap the can to see what it sounds like.Getting back to the M3/B&W comparison. The M3, though an Axiom speaker, is known to have somewhat different characteristics than the rest of Axioms speakers and most of the people involved in the test had never heard an M3 before, nor had most heard the B&W if any. So to imply that we "knew" which was the Axiom because we own M80s or M60s or whatever, is just heresay. Some speakers are easy to tell the difference sonically like the ones you mentioned, but most would be hard pressed when comparing similarly designed ones.

I wonder if that test was conducted at B&W, if you would have preferred the B&Ws. Paradigm ran a similar blind test claiming their speakers beat B&Ws too. Seems like speaker companies like to compare themselves to B&W alot and of course when they host a blind test at their facility, using their setup, they....ALWAYS win.. HMMM.

I wonder if that test was conducted at B&W, if you would have preferred the B&Ws. Paradigm ran a similar blind test claiming their speakers beat B&Ws too. Seems like speaker companies like to compare themselves to B&W alot and of course when they host a blind test at their facility, using their setup, they....ALWAYS win.. HMMM.

Is it any different than people on this thread, including manufacturers themselves thinking properly designed speakers costing above $2k can only improve looks and not performance? and that the high end speaker market is nothing more than eye candy?

I wonder if that test was conducted at B&W, if you would have preferred the B&Ws. Paradigm ran a similar blind test claiming their speakers beat B&Ws too. Seems like speaker companies like to compare themselves to B&W alot and of course when they host a blind test at their facility, using their setup, they....ALWAYS win.. HMMM.

You actually think B&W would test their $2500 speaker up against a $350 speaker? You seem intent on discrediting the results of this test or Paradigms for whatever reason. For the record, I never even told you which speaker I preferred, so once again, you've made another assumption/heresay. In fact, I had the two speakers in a virtual tie, I kept switching back and forth between the two on various material and found them both pleasant and very, very similar. Each pair had their advantage on certain material...In fact I thought they were two versions of exactly the same speaker(V1/V2 or V3). You're intent on not believing (double) blind testing, so just what kind of testing do you in fact advocate?

_________________________
Half of communication is listening. You can't listen with your mouth.

Is it any different than people on this thread, including manufacturers themselves thinking properly designed speakers costing above $2k can only improve looks and not performance? and that the high end speaker market is nothing more than eye candy?

Yes, different. One's paranoia. The other is denial.

Wow Axiom should build cars too b/c with this logic, they should be able to make a car perform like a Porsche and cost less than a Camry. It's amazing that they can slop some drivers in a box costing thousands less than the most elaborate designs and be at worst case similarly good. Amazing!

I wonder if that test was conducted at B&W, if you would have preferred the B&Ws. Paradigm ran a similar blind test claiming their speakers beat B&Ws too. Seems like speaker companies like to compare themselves to B&W alot and of course when they host a blind test at their facility, using their setup, they....ALWAYS win.. HMMM.

You actually think B&W would test their $2500 speaker up against a $350 speaker? You seem intent on discrediting the results of this test or Paradigms for whatever reason. For the record, I never even told you which speaker I preferred, so once again, you've made another assumption/heresay. In fact, I had the two speakers in a virtual tie, I kept switching back and forth between the two on various material and found them both pleasant and very, very similar. Each pair had their advantage on certain material...In fact I thought they were two versions of exactly the same speaker(V1/V2 or V3). You're intent on not believing (double) blind testing, so just what kind of testing do you in fact advocate?

You didn't participate in a double blind test. You participated in a single blind test run by the manufacturer who participated. Yet you think there was no bias here.

Why don't you think it was a double blind test? The manufacturer knew which speakers were being tested, but not which speakers at a given time. The manufacturer wasn't changing the speakers, the user was.

And I wasn't there, by the way, so you can save your inferences on me.

Also, I don't think ANYONE has said explicitly, as you seem to keep stating, that M80s would beat Revels in a double blind test. Only that one would NEED a double blind test to see whether they would or not.

Stop making car analogies. Jeezus christ, everyone stop making car analogies for everything. Macs are not BMWs, Axioms are not Hyundais, a woman isn't a Corvette, and Cheerios are not Lincoln Continentals.

Why don't you think it was a double blind test? The manufacturer knew which speakers were being tested, but not which speakers at a given time. The manufacturer wasn't changing the speakers, the user was.

And I wasn't there, by the way, so you can save your inferences on me.

Also, I don't think ANYONE has said explicitly, as you seem to keep stating, that M80s would beat Revels in a double blind test. Only that one would NEED a double blind test to see whether they would or not.

Stop making car analogies. Jeezus christ, everyone stop making car analogies for everything. Macs are not BMWs, Axioms are not Hyundais, a woman isn't a Corvette, and Cheerios are not Lincoln Continentals.

A true double blind test cannot have the listener, observer or the persons comparing the data know what products were tested. Since Axiom actually set the test up, that's a huge source of bias. How can you be sure they didn't position or setup their own speaker at an advantage? How can you be sure they didn't tamper with their competitor speaker? Not saying that they did, but it is a source of bias and concern. Years ago Bose got busted for doing this very thing making people think they were listening to their cubes when instead they had towers running behind a curtain.

It was stated by two Axiom employees in this thread that they were confident the M80s would be at worst case "similarly" good to the cost no object Revels. Seems like a lot of kool aid is being passed around here.